I was almost sucked into the excitement of the Cash for Clunkers program. I test drove a Smart Car and briefly considered trading in my ’99 Jeep Wrangler for one. Turns out I didn’t like the way the Smart Car shifts gears and abandoned the whole idea. (Go test drive one if you don’t know what I’m talking about.)
Despite my desire to upgrade, there was something that really bothered me about the whole Cash for Clunkers program. This niggling in the back of my mind arose from what I’ve seen over the last 22 years during my travels to developing countries. Specifically, I have seen just how ingenious a person can be when it comes to repairs (of cars, electronics, phones, bicycles, motorcycles, you name it) when they don’t have the money to buy (or have access to) new parts.
I’ve seen barrels filled with water, hoses connected to the engine, sitting atop buses in Vietnam, a sort of cooling system when the original one fails. I’ve seen bicycles held together with wires. I’ve had my own motorcycle dismantled and fixed in Mexico in a remote area without the use of a lift or proper tools. And in Kolkata, I had my broken camera repaired at the “camera hospital”, a tiny room filled with unsophisticated equipment. It was returned in perfect condition.
For about $20 U.S., I had my camera repaired in Kolkata. This same repair would have been prohibitively expensive in Seattle. I would have tossed the camera and purchased a new one.
I understand the relationship between cheap labor in a developing country and affordable repairs, but in the U.S., we think nothing of buying a new item and tossing the old into the junk heap. This forces us into our disposable mindset. And hence the frenzy to trade in a car that runs perfectly well for a car that gets a bit better gas mileage. Not a bad idea, really, until you consider what happened to all those cars.
Described by the U.S. government as “wildly successful”, more than 700,000 “clunkers” were taken off the road. Liberated. Replaced by a car that’s more environmentally friendly.
Liquid glass was added to the engines so as to render them useless. Then these now undriveable cars were crushed or dismantled for their parts.
In a 2005 story from the Cambodia Daily, cars considered scrap in the U.S. are shipped to Cambodia and other developing countries en masse. They’re sold at affordable prices to these countries and give the cars a new life. What happens now? In a recent article on Vox, the Cash for Clunkers program “is likely to displace international trade in used vehicles”.
We’ve just buried nearly 3/4 million cars. Cars that could have been shipped to other countries. To people whose governments will not provide them with a rebate to purchase a car – new or used. People who cannot afford anything but what we might consider a clunker. These people will now have to go without or continue to maintain older vehicles that could very well add even more carbon emissions into the environment than if they had traded up to one of our clunkers.
If we’re truly a global society, who’s thinking about the rest of the world?
Travel Well,
Beth
Photo cars: Kodiax2
Related links:
The American Travel Ethos
Flight Booking Engines – What Works?
What Makes a Travel Hotspot?
Unplugging While Traveling
Airport Safety = Security Theater?
Pretty Young Thang
How Not to be a Trashy Tourist
Matt Keegan says
Well said!
You’ve touched on an issue that no one including hard core environmentalists have addressed: landfill waste.
Also, by keeping an older but still useful model on the road, you’re extending its life and keeping it from heading off to the junkyard.
Sure, vehicle emissions are a factor, but the way that you drive is important too. I have an eight year old Dodge Neon that I only drive 3-4 thousand miles annually. That’s right — I rarely drive it, but I still need the car.
There are a lot of cars on the road that get better gas mileage and emit fewer pollutants, but these cars are driven 15-20 thousand miles annually. On an annual basis, my Neon emits fewer pollutants and it consumes fewer fossil fuels. Therefore, who is more environmentally responsible?
Lastly, that three billion dollars to finance “cash for clunkers” had to come from somewhere. More gov’t bail out money which only grabbed sales from later months to benefit a program that has since ended.
Karissa says
I hated the idea of this too. Once I heard what was happening to these clunkers, I decided it was one of the dumbest ideas the govt has had in a long while! well maybe not that long….
Beth says
Well said, Matt. You’re absolutely right about the amount of driving that a person does. I drive my ’99 Wrangler about 6,000 miles a year. Still a lot, but not as much as most.
Denise says
I really like the global perspective you bring–I’ve not read this elsewhere.
Caitlin says
The last thing that Cambodia and the rest of the developing world need is more cars. The last thing that America should try to export to the rest of the world is its car-addicted culture.
I would far rather these cars were taken off the road for good, melted down for scrap metal, with individual parts recycled, than given new life in another part of the world. Our emissions are global and displacing the emissions doesn’t help.
The reason why America’s public transport system sucks so badly and why its cities are so bike and pedestrian unfriendly is because cars and fuel have been cheap and plentiful for far too long. Let’s not make it easier for other countries to make the same mistakes.
And no, it’s not a case of me saying that it’s all right for people in the West to drive cars, but not for developing countries. I don’t own a car and, at the age of 33, never have. I can’t promise that I never will but I will try damn hard not to move to a place that forces me to have a car.
Geogypsy says
I’m just going to drive my clunker into the ground. Can’t afford to replace it. Yet it seems a shame to crush so many vehicles that could still be used somewhere.
Nathalie Lussier says
I cannot agree more! In China I saw tons of spaces filled with old refrigerators, TVs, VCRs, DVD players, basically all the electronic stuff we just “toss out”. But they weren’t waiting for these to rust, they were actually going through them to fix them or take parts and repurpose them. They totally understand that it’s more than just about getting the latest thing, when you can recycle first.
jessiev says
i don’t like crushing them, either – recycling, somehow, makes a great deal of sense. excellent article!
Jack says
This was always to support the car industry, not help the environment. By completely scrapping these cars, not only are new cars sold, but second-hand vehicles are taken out of the market, driving more new car sales even in secondary markets like Africa…
Dawn says
There are pros and cons to everything. While you bring out some very good points about cash for clunkers – all those people who could get some more life out of there car are now saving money on gas and saving money on car repairs. You were quick to miss that point.
Some of those “clunkers” will and be used for parts and if cars pollute why would we ship these cars off to other countries to pollute their country – it’s all one earth.
Brian says
Where do you all get the idea that crushed cars are stuck in a landfill? They are crushed to make them easier to transport to a recycling facility. Cars are one of the most recycled things there is. See http://www.recycle-steel.org/cars.html
April N says
I agree 100%.
Ironically I work in the auto industry and have seen the increase in orders because of cash for clunkers. But I work at a plant in Mexico.
I married a Mexican whose brother has fixed our brake lights with wire out of a trash can. He also re-built his pick-up with nothing more than a few simple tools after he was hit by a drunk driver. The truck would have been scrapped as “salvage” in the US. Guillermo used rope and a tree to straighten out the frame.
Cash for clunkers temporarily stimulated the economy and improved emissions in the US, but if the cars traded in had been shipped to Mexico or other countries, there could have been a greater global benefit.
Chris Ellis says
I totally agree with you on this. I spend a lot of time in Southern Italy and have a friend there who, I believe although I have never asked, gathers up the wrecked cars and rebuilds them in his shop and then sells or rents them out. He is wildly successful and he offers cars to people who may not be able to afford them.
Here in California, I had to get rid of my beloved twenty year old Miata. She only cost me about $30. a week in gas, much less than the car I am driving now. I was forced to give her up because eh was deemed a “gross polluter” due to the new CARB (California Air Resources Board) regulations. I have to believe that this is a gift to car manufacturers because it makes no sense. Miata’s are tiny and two years ago it passed with flying colors. I would have loved to keep her but I couldn’t get her registered. Love your site!